U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has released details on the final approval hearing in the House v. NCAA settlement, which is scheduled for April 7.
Wilken issued an order listing out the objectors who will speak at the hearing, which is limited to 14 due to time constraints.
The list of objectors includes seven lawyers, led off by Steven Molo of MoloLamken LLP, a law firm that was helping student-athletes file their objections against the settlement.
It also includes LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, who penned a letter objecting to the settlement in February, and Michelle Roberts, the former executive director of the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA).
The most notable objector, as mentioned by attorney Mit Winter, is the United States, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) has publically raised concerns about the settlement recently.
Full List of Objectors:
- Objectors represented by Steven Molo of MoloLamken LLP.
- Objector represented by Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery LLC.
- Objectors represented by Michael P. Lehmann of Hausfeld LLP.
- Objector represented by Laura Reathaford of Lathrop GPM.
- Objectors represented by Patrick A. Bradford of Bradford Edwards LLP.
- Objectors represented by Alex R. Straus of Milberg LLP.
- Objector represented by Caroline G. McGlamry of Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood PC.
- Objectors represented by Leigh Ernst Friestedt.
- Objectors represented by Michelle Roberts.
- Objector the United States.
- Objector Gannon Flynn.
- Objector Gracelyn Laudermilch.
- Objector Benjamin Burr-Kirven.
- Objector Olivia Dunne.
Wilken reminded objectors that she can’t change the terms of the settlement during the final hearing.
Objectors simply have to address if they wish the court to reject the settlement and set the case for trial, not call on Wilken to make a few tweaks to the terms.
This is believed to be targeted toward those who have called on Wilken to change the pending roster limit rules.
There’s also a note likely targeted towards those who have called on Wilken to push the NCAA to make changes to their roster limit implementations. pic.twitter.com/jgmJAzMMFd
— Sam C. Ehrlich (@samcehrlich) March 5, 2025
You can find the full order issued by Wilken here.
The pending settlement and its ramifications, specifically roster limits, have resulted in a significant number of cuts to swimming & diving teams in recent days with the transfer portal opening next week.
The settlement was also specifically mentioned as a reason behind financial issues leading Cal Poly to cut its swimming and diving programs on Friday.
A travesty created by Greed and incompetence by the NCAA. Class action lawyers stand to get $800 million in fee’s
Baby gronk isn’t gonna like this one
I’m not sure if I’m understanding this properly. This final approval hearing is to determine whether or not the entire House vs NCAA gets thrown out, right? I know it likely won’t end what’s currently going on, but would it minimize the effects to an extent should it be thrown out? But also, it’s not likely to be thrown out, right?
The final approval hearing is to accept the settlement agreement or send the case to trial. There’s no outcome here that gets the suit thrown out.
Thanks!
Also, that would take getting sent to trial?
There are several factors the court looks at in approving a settlement. The main one at issue in this case will probably be fairness. The judge would have to be convinced that the settlement is fundamentally unfair to a portion of the class members.
I think there is a good chance the Judge has to reject the settlement. The class action notice they sent to the athletes never even mentioned roster limits or roster cuts – – that is a huge flaw in the settlement process.
A class action settlement is not the appropriate place to resolve this. The class has profound conflicts – some kids will get some money, most kids get no money, and a large portion of the class will be harmed by roster limits and the resulting cuts.
Between the class conflicts and the misleading class notice, I don’t see how the judge approves this. The worst part is, if she does, it will fail on appeal, but she will… Read more »
My first major takeaway from this is Olivia Dunne objecting it. She doesn’t need the few dollars she’ll get from this but her teammates and fellow Olympic sport athletes will be hurt from this. Good on her
This^^^ The fact that her multi-million dollar NIL deals may not happen in a post-House world (ex: no team, no roster spot) should carry weight in the hearing.
Her NIL deals have nothing to do with this case. A different case already resolved allowed her to make NIL deals. This case was brought by athletes who graduated in the 3 years before the NCAA was forced to allow NIL deals.